(indieWIRE/03.11.02) — Alfonso Cuarón‘s fourth feature “Y Tu Mamá También” is more than just a sexy, teen romp through Mexican high society and remote hinterlands. It’s social commentary, psychological journey, and sure, it’s also a steamy story of two boys bedding an older woman. Based on a story that Cuarón and his brother Carlos wrote more than 10 years ago, the film follows Tenoch (Diego Luna) and Julio (Gael García Bernal), two horny guys who embark on a road trip with the object of their desire, Luisa (Maribel Verdú), the wife of one of Tenoch’s older cousins.

Inspired by Frank Zappa, Jean-Luc Godard, bad teen movies, erotica, andtheir own experiences in past and present Mexico, the Cuarón brothers’collaboration is a tour-de-force merging high and low styles. Hilarious andtouching, political and personal, the film won screenwriting and actingprizes at the 2001 Venice Film Festival, swept the Mexican box office lastyear and is poised to be one of 2002’s great foreign film success stories inthe U.S. indieWIRE recently spoke with Cuarón about the film’s unique thirdperson narration, its freewheeling style, and his close collaboration withnoted cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (“Sleepy Hollow,” “Ali“). IFC Films will release “Y Tu Mamá También” this Friday.

“One of the reasons why I wanted to do this film was because I wanted to goback to my roots, and I’m not talking about Mexico, but my creative roots:to make a film that we would have loved to do before going to film school.”

indieWIRE: How did you establish the film’s objective point of view?

Alfonso Cuarón: I set out with Carlos to do something very objective. Isaid, “We need a narrator, a third-person narrator.” And he said, “No itwon’t work; we need a first person narrator.” Then I showed him “Masculin,Feminin,” and the first time that Godard uses the third-person narrator, hewas like, “Okay, play no more, I get it.”

iW: Can you talk about those documentary-like moments, where the camera roves away from the story onto other details?

Cuarón: Yeah, that was in the script. There was this idea that the camerawas going to be seeking out little observations, almost in a documentarystyle. There’s an action going on here, but the camera has its own comments.For us, it was so liberating. Four years ago, we would have thought it washorrible. We were framing shots and I was like, “Emmanuel, how does itlook?” And he would say, “It looks like shit.” And I was like, “What’swrong?” And he’d be like, “No, let’s shoot it. It looks like shit; it’sgreat!” And that was the philosophy.

iW: But it doesn’t really look like shit.

Cuarón: Yeah, but it’s not a postcard. It was about decomposing, as opposed to composing the shot. It was about making it look improvised. One of thereasons why I wanted to do this film was because I wanted to go back to myroots, and I’m not talking about Mexico, but my creative roots: to make afilm that we would have loved to do before going to film school, when youdon’t know how to shoot a movie or compose a shot. It was going to be a filmschool teacher’s nightmare. It was not about breaking the rules, but aboutnot knowing the rules ever existed.

iW: The film actually looks very good, though. It’s not some gritty handheld look; it’s very beautiful.

Cuarón: That’s Emmanuel [Lubezki]. He and I have a long relationship. He’s not just my DP; he’s one of the most important collaborators. Emmanuel is not a director of photography who puts up lights and sets up frames; he’sinvolved in narrative. For as long as I was writing the script, I wastalking about it with him. After we finished “Great Expectations,” we weresick of searching for a style. We felt we were hitting dead ends everywhereand everything was feeling baroque. And we were saying, next film, we haveto do something objective. Because we were doing subjective films where youexperience everything from the point of view of the main character. And whenwe were writing, we were always thinking in those terms. When we started inpre-production, we decided we wanted to do it handheld, mostly because ofthe freedom that it would give to us and the actors. But at the same time,we didn’t want to do this TV thing, where the camera is moving like crazy.We started to think about everything being quite posed, watching everythingfrom a distance.

iW: Was shooting in sequence helpful?

Cuarón: Yes, definitely. Here, it was a luxury. The map of our shooting wasbased on the map of the road trip in the film. There were two amazingfactors: Gael and Diego have known each other since they were kids and theydidn’t know Maribel [Verdú]. There were only two rehearsals with the threeof them. We were supposed to have more, but I didn’t want the ice to bebroken. So they used that as a tool. So as the ice melts between thecharacters, it was happening in real life, in the same way that Maribel wasfeeling more comfortable in Mexico, the character of Louisa is feeling morecomfortable in Mexico. The only thing we shot out of continuity was the verylast scene in the coffee shop, because we wanted to get it out of the way;otherwise, the actors would have been self-conscious working for thatclimax. So they were performing in the moment, not the grand finale.

“I have a very subjective experience with my movies. I experience them andafter I finish a movie, I never see them again.”

iW: Was going back to Mexico powerful for you personally as well as a filmmaker?

Cuarón: It was the first time I spent such a long time in Mexico in maybe 10years. It was amazing. I hadn’t gone on a road trip there in a long time. Solooking for locations was rediscovering Mexico, which in many ways hasn’tchanged. For me, it was a reclamation of Mexico. A lot of the vignettes wehad in the film were things we experienced looking for locations.

iW: Do you feel like you’ve made something more special, more significant with “Y Tu Mamá” than what you’ve done with your previous films?

Cuarón: There’s not much I can say, because I have a very subjectiveexperience with my movies. I experience them and after I finish a movie, Inever see them again. I haven’t seen any of my films since the last day atthe lab. For me, it’s about what I have learned for the next movie. From mystandpoint, “Y Tu Mamá” may be my best movie, or my least bad movie. Butdefinitely, “A Little Princess” is my most personal film and one thing hasnothing to do with the other.

iW: What did you learn on “Y Tu Mamá” for your next film?

Cuarón: A lot. I learned there’s an amazing unexplored territory in terms ofnarrative. Before, I thought the unexplored territory was the form, the wayyou shoot a movie. Now, I’m learning about the beautiful marriage betweenform and narrative. I used to be very controlling with visuals and editing,and I would pretty much craft the performances; now I have learned to trustthe material and the actors. On this film, what was so liberating was thateverything was on the shoulders of the actors. That was great.

iW: Are you working on something else now?

Cuarón: A studio film called “Children of Men.” It’s science fiction. Not lasers and stuff, but it’s the world 23 years from now. It’s a world wherefor 18 years, no new baby has been born, so humanity is doomed to disappearin 60 years. The world is falling apart out of hopelessness. But I want toshoot it like “Battle of Algiers” rather than “Blade Runner,” almost like adocumentary about something that happened back in 2024.